Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi a 'black swan'?

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2011 06:46:28 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>. there is plenty of overlap in this list - and most of these have been
>considered to be in the fold of LENR in the past, by default, but clearly
>the inventor has said over and over that this is not related to "cold
>fusion" . but also that he doesn't understand it.
[snip]
...yes, but remember he uses a very limited definition of CF, so all he's really
saying is that it's not CF using heavy water in an electrolytic cell, which is
obvious anyway.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:The Big Picture

[mixent]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2011 11:23:48 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>
>> Most processes do not scale linearly and offer new engineering
>> challenges at certain cusps.  A good example could be the nanopowder
>> core of the reactor.
>
>
>This is the kind of thing that may cause problems in a scale-up. But I think
>the plan is to make many small reactor cores, about the size of the present
>demo unit: ~1 L. People here have reported it will have ~120 units ganged
>together. (Was it 120? Did that info come from Rossi's blog?)

1 MW / 10 kW = 100.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

[Vo]:Carbon free Gasoline

[Ron Wormus]

Not to take anything away from the Rossi discussion but this sounds pretty 
interesting too.



Like Rossi not much real info here either.
Ron

Re: [Vo]:The Big Picture

[Terry Blanton]

Yes, this is the way Tesla made their successful battery.

T

RE: [Vo]:Rossi again rejects putting demo units in other labs

[OrionWorks]

>From Jed and Rossi:

>> Jed:
>> I know many people who would be happy to pay for the additional
>> demonstration units, and any other costs associated with them.

> From Rossi:
> Dear Jed,
> As I already said, my next public appearence will be to introduce
> the 1 MW plant, because:
>
> C = 1/D^2
> 
> Wherein:
> C = moles of chattering
> D= Dimensions of the reactors
> Warm regards,
> A.R.
> Wherein:
> A = Andrea
> R = Rossi

>> Well, he has a sense of humor anyway. 
>> "Wherein: A = Andrea, R = Rossi"

Having worked extensively with a similar algebraic algorithm, 1/r^2, in
simulating the mysterious behavior of orbiting bodies, as governed by the
laws of Celestial Mechanics, I would have to say that Rossi makes a valid
point - regardless of how humorously creative the conclusion may seem to
most of us. ;-)

OTOH, me-thinks it's easy to maintain the appearance of magnanimousness when
one is under the assumption that they are calling the shots. 

Speaking of scientific analysis, has Rossi ever said anything of pertinence
about allowing independent analysis of the copper his Ni + H reactors are
alleged to produce? More to the point, has anyone SEEN the copper??? Surely
Rossi MUST have samples laying about the lab. As Jones astutely stated not
too long, analysis of the Ni / Cu ratio would probably in itself establish
authenticity beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt.


Regards

Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks 

[Vo]:Rossi again rejects putting demo units in other labs

[Jed Rothwell]

>From the blog:

Jed Rothwell
January 29th, 2011 at 3:28 PM

You wrote: “We will continue the reseach with the University of Bologna to
deepen the knowledge under a theoretical point of view.”

I hope that Celani and others from the ENEA will also take part in these
tests.

There are many good theoreticians at Cambridge U. and in the U.S. as well.
If you distribute some other units to other universities, they may discover
something that the people at U. Bologna overlook.

I am sure there is much to be learned, and it will be necessary for
thousands of scientists worldwide to test these devices to find out all
about them. A small number of people at one university will not be enough.
There are thousands of people world-wide researching combustion (fire) even
though it is well understood and people have been using it for thousands of
years.

Until you get a patent you will have to have researchers sign non-disclosure
agreements (NDA). That should not be a problem.

I know many people who would be happy to pay for the additional
demonstration units, and any other costs associated with them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Andrea Rossi
January 30th, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Dear Jed,
As I already said, my next public appearence will be to introduce the 1 MW
plant, because:

C = 1/D^2

Wherein:
C = moles of chattering
D= Dimensions of the reactors
Warm regards,
A.R.
Wherein:
A = Andrea
R = Rossi

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Well, he has a sense of humor anyway. "Wherein: A = Andrea R = Rossi"

Re: [Vo]:The Big Picture

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:


> Most processes do not scale linearly and offer new engineering
> challenges at certain cusps.  A good example could be the nanopowder
> core of the reactor.


This is the kind of thing that may cause problems in a scale-up. But I think
the plan is to make many small reactor cores, about the size of the present
demo unit: ~1 L. People here have reported it will have ~120 units ganged
together. (Was it 120? Did that info come from Rossi's blog?)

I do not think they ever intend to make a single large core, along the lines
of a Tokamak reactor.

Nowadays, it is not difficult to manufacture thousands or even millions of
identical objects. A megawatt scale cold fusion reactor might be made of an
array of small cells, perhaps as small as AAA batteries. That would be a lot
smaller than Rossi's present cell. Each might be self-contained, perhaps
with all of them a bath of pressurized cooling water. This is similar to the
way a uranium reactor core has rods filled with fuel pellets each 1.7 cm
long.

- Jed

[Vo]:Neww Photocatalyst

[francis]

 

Cheap, Clean Ways to Produce Hydrogen for Use in Fuel Cells? A Dash of
Disorder Yields a Very Efficient Photocatalyst

 

http://tinyurl.com/4dz27gk

 

News article on Science about black titanium dioxide sounds similar to old
article about black silicon but much easier to produce. More support that
defects

and disorder in a lattice is proportional to catalytic ability.

Fran

Re: [Vo]:The Big Picture

[Terry Blanton]

Most processes do not scale linearly and offer new engineering
challenges at certain cusps.  A good example could be the nanopowder
core of the reactor.  If heat is generated uniformly within the core
and extracted only at the surface of the core the process can mimic
the heat enginee of corpulent people.

As a human's weight increases, heat is removed from the body by the
square of the radius (assuming a spherical human); but, is generated
by the cube of the radius.

Ask Jabba.  :-)

T

Re: [Vo]:The Big Picture

[Jed Rothwell]

Kyle Mcallister  wrote:


> What people ought to understand, if (a BIG if) Rossi's machine really does
> work, is that the radiation emission from it (whatever it is), is probably
> going to be far less dangerous than the radionucleides emitted from burning
> coal.
>

I agree. It is *probably* going to be less dangerous. The key word is
"probably." Until we know that for a fact, and it has been confirmed by many
experts in many independent test, I think it is foolhardy to scale up so
much.

Furthermore, you do not need to scale up in order to make rapid technical
progress. If a program of intense R&D along with multiple safety checks were
undertaken now in dozens of labs, or hundreds of labs, in a year or two we
would be closer to solving the energy crisis with this machine than we will
be with Rossi's present business strategy. Toyota took about 5 years to
design the Prius and begin manufacturing it. When production began, the
number of Priuses coming off the line probably exceeded the number of Rossi
gadgets they will be able to make in a few years. Five years of R&D at
several major industrial companies would be a reasonable length of time
before we get the first commercial Rossi device. The time would not be
wasted. There would be no overall delay. Projects with smaller devices could
begin immediately in universities and National Labs.

Furthermore -- here is the important thing from our point of view -- the day
after Toyota or GE or some other big companies announce they have begun R&D
to introduce a commercial Rossi device, every other industrial company on
earth would be on notice that they better follow suit or go out of business.
I think they would act. Robert Park and the New York Times might ignore
these events, but that would not impede the R&D. It would make no difference
at all.

It may be that Rossi has contracted with experts to do safety testing. I
have no knowledge of this, either way.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Also Not So Sprach Dr. Robert Park

[MJ]

On 30-Jan-11 13:24, Terry Blanton wrote:

I think Park waits until the meme has sufficiently propagated so that
he maximizes the impact of his criticism.

T



Maybe he already has some privileged information...

MJ

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi a 'black swan'?

[Peter Gluck]

It doesn't matter if a swan is black or white, so long as it catches
mice. (Deng
Xiaoping )

I am not absolutely sure that the above quotation is exact; my memory is not
more what it was, but what counts is that Rossi tries to sell an Energy
Source and this is not unexpected. He says it is LENR- all we can say now
is: vederemo.

Peter

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Well – not so fast. How can you assume LENR?
>
>
>
> Most of us here “want to believe” it is LENR, but where is the evidence of
> anything nuclear? Are you saying that excess heat over and above chemical
> makes it LENR by default?
>
>
>
> Maybe - It is clearly “new physics” but the lack of radioactivity at the
> demo (Levi paper) makes it less likely to be nuclear.
>
>
>
> This leaves three or four basic categories of non-nuclear or crossover
> reactions, as options:
>
> 1)QM based “near nuclear tunneling” but w/o nuclear alteration
>
> 2)Mills, or fractional ground states
>
> 3)Langmuir/Moller atomic hydrogen (active Casimir heating)
>
> 4)ZPE (other variations of the above) including Heffner’s “nuclear
> ZPE”
>
> 5)MIMS – or “metastable inner-shell molecular states”. This is really
> another name for “ballotechnics” aka “supra-chemistry” since it deals with
> inner orbitals.
>
> 6)Any combination or permutation, including ZPE reactions which
> eventually accelerate nuclear decay to stable isotopes
>
>
>
> … there is plenty of overlap in this list – and most of these have been
> considered to be in the fold of LENR in the past, by default, but clearly
> the inventor has said over and over that this is not related to “cold
> fusion” … but also that he doesn’t understand it.
>
>
>
> …and in any event, there is too little real data is available to contradict
> Rossi’s own appraisal that it is not cold fusion. IOW it could be a
> completely new reaction, the ‘black swan’ or ‘Goodyear moment’ which was not
> a predictable outcome from the P&F experiment.
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>
> *From:* Peter Gluck
>
>
>
> Interesting idea, but the Rossi cell was predictable.
>
>
>
> Globally we ( a rather small group) knew that LENR is possible in principle
> but very difficult to achieve in practice- at a technologically valuable
> level.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> Jones Beene wrote:
>
> The ‘Black Swan Theory’ of human development was developed by Nassim
> Nicholas Taleb to better explain the role of “freaky” randomness in history
> and science. Not just ‘improbability’ but utter unpredictability on one
> level, yet with the kind of hidden influences that makes it stochastic
> instead of pure randomness.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Also Not So Sprach Dr. Robert Park

[Terry Blanton]

I think Park waits until the meme has sufficiently propagated so that
he maximizes the impact of his criticism.

T

[Vo]:zitterbewegung

[francis]

A 1994 paper "BEYOND E=mc2 "  by Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda & H.E.
Puthoff   http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/sciences.html lends support to my
posit of
relativistic vacuum fluctuations moving at the speed of light but the
present description of this trembling motion called zitterbewegung does not
assign a vector to the motion. The Present interpretation is a sea of
virtual particles/vacuum flux which are constantly winking into and out of
physical existence. The accumulation of gravity as described by this theory
would necessitate that this sea is intersecting with all 3 spatial axis at
90 degrees because it has no spatial bias unless you accelerate relative to
it on a specific vector. The Gamma formula does indeed reflect an equal
Pythagorean relationship to an object approaching C on any spatial vector.
Relativity and time dilation prove that we are unable to observe any change
in this rate of intersection which by nature will always appear to be C
whether we are in open space or deep in the gravity well of a black hole,
our reality is scaled to the local vacuum energy density. My point is that
zitterbewegung is not the same virtual particles winking into and out of
existence over and over again but rather a moving stream of virtual
particles travelling from the future to the past. This stream only becomes
physical long enough to pass through the Present and has a rate proportional
to energy density. Hence a neo Lorentzian ether where there is no etheric
wind such as M&M pursued because the relative motion is constant to all 3
axis. This is related to my new blog "The Primary Objection to Relativistic
Interpretation of Casimir Effect"
http://froarty.scienceblog.com/32169/primary-objection-to-relativistic-inter
pretation-of-casimir-effect/
Regards
Fran

 

[snip from paper]
In 1989 the idea was taken up by one of us (Puthoff) and formulated within
the framework of stochastic electrodynamics into a preliminary but
quantifiable, nonrelativistic representation of Newtonian gravitation. The
underlying principle is remarkably intuitive. If a charged particle is
subjected to ZPF interactions, it will be forced to fluctuate in response to
the random jostlings of the electromagnetic waves of the ZPF. Moreover,
since the ZPF is all-pervasive, charged particles everywhere in the universe
will be forced to fluctuate. Now a basic result from classical
electrodynamics is that a fluctuating electric charge emits an
electromagnetic radiation field. The result is that all charges in the
universe will emit secondary electromagnetic fields in response to their
interactions with the primary field, the ZPF. 

The secondary electromagnetic fields turn out to have a remarkable property.
Between any two particles they give rise to an attractive force. The force
is much weaker than the ordinary attractive or repulsive forces between two
stationary electric charges, and it is always attractive, whether the
charges are positive or negative. The result is that the secondary fields
give rise to an attractive force we propose may be identified with gravity. 

It is important to note that the fluctuations are relativistic - that is,
the charges move at velocities at or close to the speed of light. The energy
associated with the fluctuations - which for historical reasons is given the
German name zitterbewegung, or trembling movement - is interpreted as the
energy equivalent of gravitational rest mass. Since the gravitational force
is caused by the trembling motion, there is no need to speak any longer of a
gravitational mass as the source of gravitation. [/snip from paper]

 

[Vo]:Also Not So Sprach Dr. Robert Park

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Kettle drum roll please...

http://strauss-also-sprach-zarathustra-mp3-download.kohit.net/_/26687

Thus sprached Dr. Park:

http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/current_issue.html

...and the verdict is:

 ... again.

Jed, personally, I find Dr. Park's continued silence to be noteworthy news
in itself, even if it is by all accounts minor news. I have been under the
impression that the good doctor rarely keeps his personal opinions in check
concerning prior claims of this nature - of the extraordinary kind. So, why
is he suddenly playing his cagey card now?

It gives me the impression that Park has deliberately "parked" himself on
the sidelines in order to determine (as discretely as he can) who the winner
of this little drama might eventually turn out to be. If that is Park's
personal strategy, it seems likely to me that the good doctor may have an
excruciatingly long and frustrating wait ahead of him, just like the rest of
us who reside in the honorable peanut gallery section. 

And then, when the verdict finally comes in he'll come out with both guns
a-blazing. ...on the winning side of course, proclaiming the fact that he
knew all along what the obvious outcome was going to be.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks 

RE: [Vo]:Is Rossi a 'black swan'?

[Jones Beene]

Well - not so fast. How can you assume LENR?

 

Most of us here "want to believe" it is LENR, but where is the evidence of
anything nuclear? Are you saying that excess heat over and above chemical
makes it LENR by default?

 

Maybe - It is clearly "new physics" but the lack of radioactivity at the
demo (Levi paper) makes it less likely to be nuclear.

 

This leaves three or four basic categories of non-nuclear or crossover
reactions, as options: 

1)QM based "near nuclear tunneling" but w/o nuclear alteration

2)Mills, or fractional ground states

3)Langmuir/Moller atomic hydrogen (active Casimir heating)

4)ZPE (other variations of the above) including Heffner's "nuclear ZPE"

5)MIMS - or "metastable inner-shell molecular states". This is really
another name for "ballotechnics" aka "supra-chemistry" since it deals with
inner orbitals.

6)Any combination or permutation, including ZPE reactions which
eventually accelerate nuclear decay to stable isotopes

 

. there is plenty of overlap in this list - and most of these have been
considered to be in the fold of LENR in the past, by default, but clearly
the inventor has said over and over that this is not related to "cold
fusion" . but also that he doesn't understand it.

 

.and in any event, there is too little real data is available to contradict
Rossi's own appraisal that it is not cold fusion. IOW it could be a
completely new reaction, the 'black swan' or 'Goodyear moment' which was not
a predictable outcome from the P&F experiment.

 

Jones

 

From: Peter Gluck 

 

Interesting idea, but the Rossi cell was predictable.

 

Globally we ( a rather small group) knew that LENR is possible in principle
but very difficult to achieve in practice- at a technologically valuable
level. 

 

Peter

 

Jones Beene wrote:

The 'Black Swan Theory' of human development was developed by Nassim
Nicholas Taleb to better explain the role of "freaky" randomness in history
and science. Not just 'improbability' but utter unpredictability on one
level, yet with the kind of hidden influences that makes it stochastic
instead of pure randomness.